Page 5 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

23 Jan 2014, 2:12 pm

So you think crimes other than murder (or equivalent crime involving deliberate taking of life) should be punished with murder, even though that increases the murder rate?

I respect that somewhat more than just disregarding the evidence. I apologise for being sarcastic towards you earlier. Personally, I feel teleology is more important than deontology - that is, the consequences of punishment are generally more important than whether the punishment is principally wrong.

(Going off on a slight tangent, the common counter to that is framing someone to prevent a riot- IMO the damage that does to society and to the policeman's honour is not insignificant, but I do also think the framed man has rights that should not be violated).



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

25 Jan 2014, 4:24 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dTLCedm9iw[/youtube]



Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

27 Jan 2014, 6:07 am

A possibility would be to execute any judge or jury that sentenced an innocent man to death. It seems to me that this might lead to more thorough trials. It would be more just than having the death penalty and not doing this. It makes little difference whether an innocent is murdered by an individual, or a justice system, after all. The men responsible should hang in both cases if either should.

Or we could not execute people.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

27 Jan 2014, 7:31 am

Stannis wrote:
A possibility would be to execute any judge or jury that sentenced an innocent man to death.

you seem to have a tenuous grasp of the idea of accountability.
it would be draconian to summon people to adjudicate a case with the threat that if they arrive at a verdict that is later found to be unfounded, then the death penalty will be applicable to all the errant jurors (who were originally innocent citizens). are the jurors allowed to be any less than omniscient in gauging the given evidence and it's presentational preamble according to the relevance needed to establish guilt?
when one is called to jury duty, should one fear for their life if they are not capable of investigating the veracity of the provided evidence given by 2 equally morally elastic sides?
can one claim they are too stupid to be on jury duty as a reason for their declination of the "invitation" ?

Stannis wrote:
It seems to me that this might lead to more thorough trials. It would be more just than having the death penalty and not doing this. It makes little difference whether an innocent is murdered by an individual, or a justice system, after all. The men responsible should hang in both cases if either should.


thoroughness is not a measure of accuracy. something can be both thoroughly accurate or thoroughly inaccurate.
if jurors are liable to be punished with the death penalty if they are later found to have been incorrect in their verdict, then how impartial do you think they would remain?

they would both be impartial to a verdict of guilty, and likewise be impartial to a verdict of not guilty, and so they would either remain silent or excuse themselves from the proceedings.

to force jurors to return and make a decision in that environment (with it's inherent dangers) is a scenario that is the stuff of science fiction.
people with feeble minds that can be blown easily away by a loosely assembled conjecture are those that would advise similarly to you.



Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

27 Jan 2014, 8:12 am

b9 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
A possibility would be to execute any judge or jury that sentenced an innocent man to death.
Quote:
you seem to have a tenuous grasp of the idea of accountability.
it would be draconian to summon people to adjudicate a case with the threat that if they arrive at a verdict that is later found to be unfounded


The post you are commenting on was intended as tongue in cheek social commentary. Sorry.

My personal view is that any justice system that kills innocents is illegitimate. Since errors are broadly speaking inevitable, that makes the death penalty illegitimate (there are other things that make it undesirable as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

I would also argue that we should sentence those in the justice system responsible for a false conviction of death, as we would anyone guilty of manslaughter. It doesn't matter to me that they thought they were correct at the time. If they thought they were correct at the time, then they are negligent, because an innocent man was killed. If the death penalty is going to be invoked, then those responsible for false sentences must be seriously punished also. Still, I would prefer it if the death penalty were never invoked.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

17 Feb 2014, 11:50 pm

Supporting the death penalty is definitely a typical NT thing.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

18 Feb 2014, 5:49 am

donnie_darko wrote:
Supporting the death penalty is definitely a typical NT thing.
No it isn't.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

18 Feb 2014, 6:03 pm

Oh, I support it wholeheartedly. Could I pull the switch on somebody or vote for them to die? Yep. There is a difference between an innocent that was murdered and somebody dying who needs killing. Yes, those are strange concepts to some of you, but some of the rest of us get it. It's not an NT thing or an AS thing.

And for a the people who say that those of us with AS can't support it, why don't you look at all the posts where people are wanting bullies to die, or people who were simply RUDE to them or picked on them? Double standard anybody?


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


hyena
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

18 Feb 2014, 6:11 pm

I support the death penalty for revenge. If a person intentionally killed another without provocation they should die for it. Anything else is injustice.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

18 Feb 2014, 6:19 pm

I actually have a tshirt around here somewhere from back when I was 21. It says "USMC Kill them all and let God sort them out".


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Feb 2014, 7:50 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
Oh, I support it wholeheartedly. Could I pull the switch on somebody or vote for them to die? Yep. There is a difference between an innocent that was murdered and somebody dying who needs killing.


For me, the question isn't the killing part, since as you say some people need it, but the part where we decide who does in fact need it. Our justice system is so flawed at the moment that I can't in good conscience support allowing it to dispense capitol punishment, since there is no way to rectify the inevitable mistakes.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Feb 2014, 11:26 am

I echo Dox47's post.

But beyond that, I am increasingly of the view that our policy approach to criminal law is precisely backwards. We formulate law, policy and practice in an effort to respond to crime; we do not formulate law, policy or practice in order to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

This is due, in part, to populist democracy. "Tough on crime" policies are popular, and the population that clamours for them is not particularly interested in participating in a deeper debate about how to make communities safer.

But policy makers are shirking their responsibilities if all that they do is echo the mob. We should have a political system in which policy choices are made with evidence based analysis, and sound, non-partisan advice from sources both within and outside of government. That doesn't happen.

Economic studies time and again have demonstrated that the strongest social factor linked to violent crime is income inequality--not absolute poverty, but the gap between rich an poor. If there is, indeed, a causal link between income inequality and violent crime (and I'm not yet ready to state that with assurance) then it would follow that policy steps intended to close the income gap are not only good economic policy, but they are good social policy as well.

But the mob is deaf to economic analysis, and our political lords and masters hear only the baying for punishment.


_________________
--James


donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

20 Feb 2014, 1:43 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
Oh, I support it wholeheartedly. Could I pull the switch on somebody or vote for them to die? Yep. There is a difference between an innocent that was murdered and somebody dying who needs killing. Yes, those are strange concepts to some of you, but some of the rest of us get it. It's not an NT thing or an AS thing.

And for a the people who say that those of us with AS can't support it, why don't you look at all the posts where people are wanting bullies to die, or people who were simply RUDE to them or picked on them? Double standard anybody?


I didn't say they couldn',t but rather as a general rule I've noticed most aspies oppose it while most NTs are for it. It doesn't mean AS people don't get angry but I have noticed a significant difference in forum death penalty polls between WP and other forums. Here you have a majority opposition to the death penalty as an idea while most other forums I frequent tend to always come out in favor of it.

In fact in the United States people with Aspergers and perhaps blacks are the only broad groups where a majority do not support the death penalty.

Also I think by saying "getting it" you are implying I am wrong about being opposed to executions, rather than simply disagreeing with you.